×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Winklevoss Twins To Continue Fighting Facebook

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the lifestyle-to-which-they've-become-accustomed dept.

Facebook 90

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook's longest legal saga, which has lasted seven years so far, looked like it was finally closed, but that was just a false alarm. In a filing earlier this week with the federal court in San Francisco, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's former Harvard classmates Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss, who accuse him of stealing their idea for the social network, decided not to seek US Supreme Court review of the $65 million settlement made in 2008. Everyone thought this meant they had finally given up. It turns out that the twins have decided to keep fighting after all, just with a different lawsuit."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

90 comments

Dear Winklevii (3, Funny)

JamesP (688957) | about 2 years ago | (#36567446)

Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational lawyer station

No Love

Emperor Zuckerberg

No, really, I'm expecting something like this. They got away with 65million already.
It's a failure of settlement they were allowed to sue again and keep the settlement

Now really I'm rooting for Mark to wipe the floor with them.

Re:Dear Winklevii (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#36567480)

"got away with"? Zuckerberg got away with his crime for a pittance of a payment in stock, and he allegedly accomplished this on the back of another crime. Rooting for Mark is like rooting for Darth Vader because some Rebel made a bad pun.

Re:Dear Winklevii (3, Insightful)

JamesP (688957) | about 2 years ago | (#36567506)

If the WV had been capable of doing Facebook they would have done facebook!

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#36567616)

A court obviously felt that there was merit to the claim, because they wouldn't have got a settlement otherwise. If you know you're going to successfully defend against a frivolous lawsuit by someone with some money to cover legal costs you go to court, you don't settle. The claim was not that they did facebook, so your comment is devoid of content.

Re:Dear Winklevii (3)

GFLPraxis (745118) | about 2 years ago | (#36567692)

Do you know what a settlement is?

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#36567714)

Do you know what a settlement is?

Yes, it's where you agree to cough up money without a verdict, or possibly without even trying a case, because you know you are going to lose. Presumably Zuckerberg also understands this. Do you?

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 2 years ago | (#36567840)

Didn't we just have one our patented (pun indented) nerd frenzies over a chap settling a copyright lawsuit even though he (says) he would have won in court? Maybe you should have commented there.

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#36569842)

Not too interested in what people say any more. By their actions shall you know them. He knew he would lose. When you know you can win you can find a lawyer because they like money.

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | about 2 years ago | (#36567844)

Actually, I'm pretty sure a settlement is where you bribe the plaintiff to leave you alone for less than the cost of your defense (aka army of high paid lawyers). Doesn't really have anything to do with what you think the verdict might turn out to be, which is random at best regardless of the truth the opposing councils have sworn to seek.

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

MicroRoller (1923300) | about 2 years ago | (#36570054)

Settlements aren't only made when they think the cost of fighting it in court would be cheaper than settling.

Most cases aren't slam dunk in either direction. If what was depicted in the movie was accurate then it's not unlikely that the twins had a decent chance of winning. An argument that Zuckerberg was leading them on as an attempt to develop his own version of a social network and stall possible competition seems reasonable.

If they won they could win a lot more than $65 million. I don't know what the original amount they were seeking was. Let's say it was $300 million. Even if you think they only have a 30% chance of succeeding it's a net gain to pay $65million, save the court costs, let Zuckerberg go back to work and move on.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem like the settlement actually settled the matter.

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | about 2 years ago | (#36570332)

I actually said that. I hinted around about the fact that the outcome can rarely be foreseen beforehand. But I think the most likely of the choices were along the lines of: Z: my defense would cost more than this, fuck it, give them $60 rather than risk losing. And W: I doubt I can win this, I might as well take the $60 and then go back on the agreement and try to get it jammed in the court again to try to make maybe another $60 even if my arguments are pure bs and likely to get thrown out.

I have little or no opinion about whether Z is a criminal or W deserves more money. All I was saying is that you can't actually tell if someone is guilty because they settle. It's probably a cost issue for the big player, who has to pay either way. The little guy probably only has to pay the lawyer if they win, and then the lawyer gets half the winnings. I find it more likely than anything that the lawyers for the little guys were saying: ahh, I don't think we can win this, we should take the offer.

My feeling is that they did this so they could make the fast cash and run rather than having to actually work for it. And I still don't think it says anything about the merits of the case.

I've seen lawyers work many times and it's never like law and order, it's always arguments between council away from the bench that go like this, "C'mon .... C'mon .... C'mon" ... woo hoo, we got an agreement.

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

MicroRoller (1923300) | about 2 years ago | (#36570428)

I actually said that.

Maybe you did. But what you typed was not anywhere close to that.

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | about 2 years ago | (#36570842)

Are you sure? "Most cases aren't a slam dunk in either direction" and "random at best" seem pretty similar to me. In any case, I expect we mostly agree if the text gets long enough, so it seems like a silly argument to have.

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 2 years ago | (#36575538)

Exactly right. A settlement is in no way, shape, or form an admission of guilt or even an acknowledgement that the suit had merit. It's just handing someone some money so they'll shut up and you can continue to run your business.

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about 2 years ago | (#36571640)

Yes, it's where you agree to cough up money without a verdict, or possibly without even trying a case, because it is cheaper then trying the case in court.

Fixed that for ya.

Re:Dear Winklevii (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36574300)

Actually, you don't know if you are going to lose (or win for that matter). And the other side does not know either. A settlement takes into account the risks involved to both parties and they each agree to the terms. A settlement should be final... unless one party violated the law to upset the balance of risks involved. WV is claiming Z did just that. Did he? I don't know, but if he did, then he should pay 65 BILLION out the a**.

Re:Dear Winklevii (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36569410)

A court obviously felt that there was merit to the claim, because they wouldn't have got a settlement otherwise.

You have zero understanding of both corporate business practices and the legal system as a whole. By definition, a settlement circumvents the legal system entirely by two disputing private parties and has nothing to do with the court nor knowing whether or not you'll win.

Corporation's settle all the time because it is less expensive to do so both in the costs of a massive legal team for years as well as the (often) negative impacts of press. A corporation is being especially business smart when it settles against an entity with the resources to run a lengthy trial for years of appeals. It by no means is an admission of guilt or righteousness by either party.

...so your comment is devoid of content.

It is, in fact, your comment which is devoid of content. Ignorant troll.

Re:Dear Winklevii (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36567562)

"Teacher, teacher! That big meanie head stole my idea!"

Ideas are a dime a dozen. To get actual value requires--gasp--actual work. Get over it, move on, and learn how to implement your own ideas instead of being useless business majors.

Re:Dear Winklevii (3, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 years ago | (#36568648)

In general I am inclined to agree but its not so simple in this case. They have always claimed that they were partners and had invested in Zuckerburg money for the start up. If that's true they are entitled to a share. That is the whole concept of venture cap.

Re:Dear Winklevii (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36568960)

The Winklevoss twins were not venture capitalists with respect to ConnectU. They had an idea which they did not know how to implement so they wanted other people to do it for them. Even if they were investors, the amount of money we're talking about here and the stage at which it was invested would make them not even angel investors. They got $65*10^6 from their settlement and then later decided they didn't like what they had agreed to. Tough luck.

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about 2 years ago | (#36570744)

Hell they didn't even share the settlement with the other people they suckered into helping them. They are currently being sued by their other developers.

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#36569614)

Except they settled. Going back to the court with some new reiteration on the same old complaint is not going to get them very far. Frankly, I think they're just trying to shakedown Zuckerberg again.

Zuckerberg should be in prison. (1)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | about 2 years ago | (#36569132)

The Palin Hacker [wikipedia.org] did far less than this, yet he's facing hard time in the federal pen [slashdot.org] ; this case shouldn't be in the civil courts - it ought to be playing out in the CRIMINAL court system:



How Mark Zuckerberg Hacked Into Rival ConnectU In 2004
Mar. 5, 2010
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-connectu-2010-3 [businessinsider.com]

...At one point, Mark appears to have exploited a flaw in ConnectU's account verification process to create a fake Cameron Winklevoss account with a fake Harvard.edu email address.

In this new, fake profile, he listed Cameron's height as 7'4", his hair color as "Ayran Blond," and his eye color as "Sky Blue." He listed Cameron's "language" as "WASP-y."

Next, Mark appears to have logged into the accounts of some ConnectU users and changed their privacy settings to invisible. The idea here was apparently to make it harder for people to find friends on ConnectU, thus reducing its utility. Eventually, Mark appears to have gone a step further, deactivating about 20 ConnectU accounts entirely...




Zuckerberg is a psychopath [slashdot.org] - the specter of him being one of the wealthiest [and most powerful] people on the planet ought to send a chill down your spine.

Re:Zuckerberg should be in prison. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36569186)

I think your tinfoil hat is a bit loose.

Re:Zuckerberg should be in prison. (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 2 years ago | (#36575632)

The Palin Hacker [wikipedia.org] did far less than this, yet he's facing hard time in the federal pen [slashdot.org] ;

I wasn't aware of the hacking accusation for Zuckerberg (if it wasn't in the Social Network, I haven't really paid attention) - but those things only look similar on a technical level.

"The Palin Hacker" was hacking in the cause of subverting an election. As a society, we take messing with the election process a lot more seriously than we do messing with random web sites of would-be college entrepreneurs.

Re:Dear Winklevii (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36569822)

Well said. You can't patent an idea. Only the unique execution of it.

The Winklevii are simply petulant, incompetent business people.

They thought they'd farm out the work to a student on the cheap, who in the end had a better and bigger vision then they did. They had enormous resources to hire a dozen pros if they wanted to, and rock the thing out quickly if being first to market was that critical. Putting a profile page together is not rocket science, similar sites even existed at the time.

They could have actually effectively managed the development of each core module over an expected project timeline. They had the freedom to fire him early on if he wasn't showing them progress, even while in reality they were being strung along.

But the thing that upsets me the most about the Winklevii douchebags getting a $100 million dollars, after being completely incompetent, is they didn't earn it. They aren't true entrepreneurs. They didn't create or innovate. They didn't code, or design themselves. They didn't quit school to follow their passion project like Jobs or Gates. And they didn't pour unending sweat equity into building a new business, working 18-20 hour days as real startup founders do. Instead, they failed, and then just sued.

Re:Dear Winklevii (4, Insightful)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | about 2 years ago | (#36567584)

It's a battle between 2 millionaire douchebags from a privileged background, I'm amazed people would root for one over the other. Screw all of them.

Re:Dear Winklevii (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36567612)

On the face of it, it appears Zuckerberg stole their ideas and quite likely their software. If so, he should be severely penalized, possibly criminally.

This is why the USA is a respected place to do business: we have laws and courts to protect our IP and they _do_ have an effect.

I doubt Zuckerberg can withstand the scrutiny of the courts. He'll be lucky to be left holding a ham sandwich once this is finished.

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about 2 years ago | (#36570808)

He did withstand the scrutiny of the courts. That is why they settled years ago. The copyrights, business arrangements, patents, and contracts were all looked at years ago. The long and short of it is the Winklevoss Twins didn't treat ConnectU like it was a business. They didn't issue contracts. They didn't discuss who owned what. They didn't even pay anyone any money.

Failure of settlement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36567960)

This seems like incompetent negotiations on the part of Zuck. The whole point of giving them $65M is that the twins go away and don't bother him again. There should be a clause that specifies "no more lawsuits".

Re:Failure of settlement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36569824)

There should be a clause that specifies "no more lawsuits".

That's not an enforceable clause. You cannot, even voluntarily, give up your right of due process.

Re:Dear Winklevii (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36568204)

Can't someone accidentally inject a "Is anyone else thinking of assassinating the Winklevoss brothers? Just saying... Sincerely, Jesus." meme into the streams of more than 500 million active users?

There's bound to be a few thousand Mark David Chapmans or Sons of Sam just waiting for a sign on there.

Re:Dear Winklevii (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 years ago | (#36569442)

It's kind of like a recent news story in which the Ku Klux Klan was protesting the Westborugh 'Baptist' 'church' (quotes included because I don't believe they qualify as either.) There is sinply no way to pick a 'lesser' evil.

Sigh (1)

Tripp-phpBB (1912354) | about 2 years ago | (#36567448)

Can't they just be happy with what they've already won and go home?

Re:Sigh (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 2 years ago | (#36567502)

Of course not! Somebody has to stand up for *cough*... principles... That why we have lawyers

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36567518)

Why can't anyone be happy with what they've already got? Why should they be different from anyone else? Aren't they entitled to exercise their rights? How does this affect you, anyway, and why do you care one way or the other? And when did Slashdot turn into People magazine? Holy crap. Why not just post the latest Britney news, too?

Re:Sigh (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 years ago | (#36569570)

Can't they just be happy with what they've already won and go home?

They appear to be students of the Larry Ellison school of thought: "You don't really win unless everyone else looses."

Re:Sigh (1)

DemonGenius (2247652) | about 2 years ago | (#36570746)

This is just the classic case of each side wanting what the other believes they don't deserve. In the end, shareholders and lawyers win as they always seem to do, and we win because we get to laugh at these wastes of space and not have to deal with the crap they do.

The moral of this story is, "Given enough time, those who set out to destroy themselves eventually do."

Riaa (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36567488)

These guys are so money hungry, they should work for the RIAA

Re:Riaa (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 2 years ago | (#36567516)

At first I thought that. But we don't know if they're fighting out of principle because of the supposed evilness that Facebook has done to them. I don't know how much the twins contributed to the whole thing, or what the terms of their stock were, but it could be a good thing if they win, since it will encourage other companies not to be so apparently evil.

winkle x2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36567526)

Winklevoss plural = Winklevii

Re:winkle x2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36567652)

No.

1) that would only work it it was Winklevus
2) that would become Winklevi - one i only.

Re:winkle x2 (1)

siride (974284) | about 2 years ago | (#36567838)

"Winklevoi" would be better, since -os is the Greek masculine singular ending, and -us is the Latin equivalent.

How did he steal it? (2, Insightful)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 2 years ago | (#36567532)

Seriously how did he steal their idea? When they came up with it, they couldn't have gotten it off the ground then? Did he beat them in building the site first? They couldn't have created their idea still? This seems frivolous to me. It's not like he stole their idea for a physical object and then patented the idea so they could never make it.

Re:How did he steal it? (4, Interesting)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 2 years ago | (#36567754)

Seriously how did he steal their idea? When they came up with it, they couldn't have gotten it off the ground then? Did he beat them in building the site first? They couldn't have created their idea still? This seems frivolous to me. It's not like he stole their idea for a physical object and then patented the idea so they could never make it.

They had an idea for a site. He made them think that he was working on that site for them. Meanwhile he was working on a similar site for himself, a site which would have been competing with the site he was supposed to be building for them. He stalled them and effectively strangled their project from the inside.

Its a fairly obvious scam when you think about it, a kind of 'denial of service'.

What he should have done is tell them "no, I'm not going to be working for you, you will have to hire someone else." Had he done this and had they hired someone else its possible that their site would have launched ahead of his and he would have faced real competition.

Maybe he wouldn't be the billionaire he is today had he not pulled off this scam.

Re:How did he steal it? (1)

JamesP (688957) | about 2 years ago | (#36567788)

He stalled them and effectively strangled their project from the inside.

Its a fairly obvious scam when you think about it, a kind of 'denial of service'.

Well, he was hired as a consultant, so it kind of makes sense.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:How did he steal it? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 2 years ago | (#36567860)

And "he was working" on means "he hired a guy to do it, but didn't pay him". Allegedly. The guy is the ultimate... executive.

Re:How did he steal it? (1)

xnpu (963139) | about 2 years ago | (#36570470)

When someone doesn't deliver you cancel the contract according to whatever the terms agreed were. This happens all the time. Many people learn from their boss only to open shop themselves as soon as they can. I think that's quite common too.

The Winkeldudes not handling these two very common issues well really just show their lack of experience. I don't like Suckingberg one bit, but I don't see why he owes them anything.

Re:How did he steal it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36570782)

Well, what if Zuck stalled them just enough to get his site up first? By the time Winkeldudes let Zuck go, it was too late.

Re:How did he steal it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36567882)

According to the movie they contracted him to finish their site that had already been started by someone else. So once he had their idea and source code he came up with facebook. Who knows if he actually used any of their code or not, or if their idea is truly anything similar between facebook and their idea, that is for the court to decide I suppose.

Re:How did he steal it? (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about 2 years ago | (#36570878)

Well not exactly. According to the movie, they contacted him after he became famous on campus for Face Smash. Face Smash was a sort of proto Facebook where you rated how well girls look from their year book photos. They were basically all working on this type of thing before they met. I am betting they real loser in this whole thing is the guy who worked on ConnectU originally. I bet he got squat from the settlement. Probably never got paid either.

Re:How did he steal it? (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36575874)

As I understand it, they hired him to write the site. He claimed he was, and then released it as his own. Imagine if you had an awesome idea for a car. You hire a craftsmen to help you build it. The guy likes your idea and says it is good and will build it for you for a small fee. He goes off and starts working on it. You communicate regularly, he tells you it is coming along. 6 months (or a year, whatever) later he says he is almost done with your product. Then he releases your product to the public as his. It is the same product you hired him to do. Did he beat you to building it, well yes in the sense that he built it, but no, not in the sense that he was supposed to be part of your team. Can you still create your idea? Sure you can find another craftsmen to built it. But you are now 6+ months late to the party, AND its not like you can build a better product because the current product IS your idea. In the sense that you gave the craftsmen the idea, and the craftsmen agreed to build it for you, and took money to build it for you, and then released it himself, then yes he stole the idea (and the product)

What's the matter with them... (1)

Announcer (816755) | about 2 years ago | (#36567606)

65 Million ought to be enough for ANYBODY!!

Re:What's the matter with them... (1)

Macrat (638047) | about 2 years ago | (#36567672)

65 Million ought to be enough for ANYBODY!!

I wonder how much that is after legal fees and taxes. 20-40% left afterwards?

Re:What's the matter with them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36569298)

65 mil
-38.3% taxes
-33% lawyers
1/2 split
==
Between 9,327,500 and 13,354,965 depending on if the laywers cut is right off the top, just as the taxes are, or if it's posttax.

It's enough money to get 2,000,000 house and never need to work for life, maybe a 1,000,000 house. But that's only enough to be rich, what they really wanted was to be filthy rich, rich enough that their 25 grandkids would be rich even if no one in the family worked.

Frankly, boo hoo. The courts can't give them a billion here because even if their own site wasnt interfered with, there's no way ensure their site would have been as popular or as good as facebook. Maybe MySpace would have won out? There's no way to know.

Re:What's the matter with them... (1)

Announcer (816755) | more than 2 years ago | (#36573848)

I would be insanely happy to take home 10% of that, are ya kidding me?! That would be enough for LIFE! My wife and I would also use it to help our families... bigtime... and STILL have PLENTY for ourselves!

Rich assholes suing rich asshole (2, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about 2 years ago | (#36567614)

Why does anyone seem to care?

Re:Rich assholes suing rich asshole (1)

Roduku (950552) | about 2 years ago | (#36567728)

Thank you. That's exactly what I was thinking. Then again, maybe it'll cause Facebook to be shut down. If that's the case, I hope they sue the shit out of him and end the most obnoxious creation on the internet.

Re:Rich assholes suing rich asshole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36569488)

...maybe it'll cause Facebook to be shut down.

Sorry, I just squirted my drink out my nose. Please tell me you don't actually think this could happen to a multibillion internet corporation... the powers at be don't work this way. We do live in the same universe, right?

Re:Rich assholes suing rich asshole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36567842)

Because in a legal system that allows this kind of nonsense, the little guy (which is most of the rest of us) can be out-spent into submission by someone with the inclination.

It *again* points out the need for tort reform. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform

Re:Rich assholes suing rich asshole (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#36568156)

This is important as it decides their fate at the hands of a poor angry mob. The winner is hunted like in the 1966 movie "The Naked Prey". The loser is killed and sent to the taxidermist to be mounted in a feral geek pose and displayed in the museum of rich assholes next to Larry Ellison.

Re:Rich assholes suing rich asshole (1)

EuclideanSilence (1968630) | about 2 years ago | (#36569626)

Why does anyone seem to care?

I hope you mean "don't care" in the sense that it shouldn't be news, rather than "don't care" in the sense that it's not legally significant. I'm going to address the second one because it's what I see most people mean when they say this.

I care if some rich person gets cheated out of his money, because laws should be applied fairly and equally whether they are rich or not. If we start with "he's rich so I don't care if he gets what he is allegedly legally entitled to" then how do you think a legislative war between us and rich people will turn out? The moment you open Pandora's box and allow special exceptions for special situations, it will get reversed on you.

This is why we have such a horrifyingly complex tax code with giant corporations getting away with paying very few taxes. Poor people get exemptions with strings attached, higher income can afford professionals to navigate all the well intentioned tax exceptions that Pandora's box created, and the rest of us are screwed.

Furthermore, what do you think happens to the economies of nations that no longer respect the property and rights of rich people?

I care whether or not a rich person can sue someone just as much as I care whether or not a poor person can sue someone, because one day I might need to sue for something I am contractually entitled to.

They should have had him sign an NDA (1)

howardd21 (1001567) | about 2 years ago | (#36567642)

These two geniuses are really identical morons. They should have had him sign a non-disclosure/non-compete agreement acknowledging the intellectual property they think they had. We would not be even discussing this now.

Furthermore, we have to acknowledge ideas grow and change; their original idea may have been similar to whatever Mark created, but it changed as soon as he started working on it. Sometimes we call these changes changes, or scope creep, or just evolution. But they always change, especially when somebody knew enters the process.

Re:They should have had him sign an NDA (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about 2 years ago | (#36570912)

Also if they had discuss wages and the ownership split with Mark they might of got him on board with ConnectU. If he had an honest stake in their company then maybe he wouldn't have betrayed them. They were expecting free work from an underclassmen like they got with the last sucker.

Top ten list of insignificance. (0)

iiiears (987462) | about 2 years ago | (#36567668)

Internet fail slashdot atempt to be digg / reddit. I for one welcome our current slashdot overlords.

I say let them win... (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 2 years ago | (#36567682)

...if only because of the endless puerile mirth to be obtained from a social networking site called "Winklebook".

Re:I say let them win... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36567786)

Well... I think they should win $2 where they can both share $1 and it'll be the end of that.

Waah! I want my Bikkits! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36567720)

Seriously, these two gentlemen are the laughing stock of the technology industry. I'd wager though that no one would say that to either of their identical faces; but isn't it worse knowing that no matter where you go your back is known as belonging to one of the leeches attempting to feed upon the technical creativity of other people?

The only thing preventing these two from executing and implementing their own idea is the inescapable notion that they do not have any other idea beyond suing others. If they had the technical creativity they would have moved on with an alternate or potentially more interesting concept than Facebook. Instead they complain like 5 year olds when mommy takes away their toys.

The only thing sadder than witnessing another pointless round of litigation is witnessing the increasingly rapid decline of a pair of might-have-been’s and creative-have-nots. I give you the Winklevoss twins; few things are funnier and sadder in appropriately identical equal measure.

Re:Waah! I want my Bikkits! (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#36567864)

Seriously, these two gentlemen are the laughing stock of the technology industry

I don't think that really is a concern of them, all they are worried about is taking as much money as they can from mark's work as they can. ( even if it was their idea, he did the work and took the risks.. not them )

But i do agree, regardless if they are right or wrong they look petty and stupid and should take what was offered and go home. If they are all that great, they will take that 65mil and turn it around and put mark out of business with a better idea.

Re:Waah! I want my Bikkits! (1)

D'Sphitz (699604) | about 2 years ago | (#36567876)

What the hell are you babbling about? They DID act on THEIR idea by hiring Zuckerburg, who decided to take the idea and run with it himself while pretending to work on the same project for the twins. Unless you consider deception and theft to be technical creativity, how the hell is Zuckerburg the good guy here?

Re:Waah! I want my Bikkits! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#36569656)

He isn't. What Zuckerberg is more bloody-minded and clever. In the world of business that means he wins. This isn't a good guy-bad guy scenario, it's about who had more acumen, daring and sheer desire to conquer, and Zuckerberg, being the antisocial hateful misfit that he is, has what it takes.

Re:Waah! I want my Bikkits! (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 2 years ago | (#36567988)

Don't know about anyone else, but every time I see someone haul out the "Waaaaah!" (i.e. "you're such a baby") it always comes across as the cheap and easy attack of a bullying child.

Seriously, these two gentlemen are the laughing stock of the technology industry. I'd wager though that no one would say that to either of their identical faces; but isn't it worse knowing that no matter where you go your back is known as belonging to one of the leeches attempting to feed upon the technical creativity of other people?

Well, I'm sure that they'd claim that Zuckerberg was the one who'd leached off them. Might be true, might not. And I doubt they care about your exaggerated perception that they're a supposed "laughing stock" in the industry.

From what I've heard of the Winklevosses, they sound like a pair of overprivileged spoiled douchebags and on one level I'd be quite happy to see them go down in flames. But then I don't much like Zuckerberg either, and if he *did* rip off their idea, I wouldn't want to see him get away with that on principle.

Generally, I agree with the other guy who said that it's two sets of tossers with lots of money playing the legal games of the privileged. The best outcome would be for Facebook to go bankrupt (not going to happen, but whatever...!), the creepy twins get nothing more and every shred of information relating to the privacy-contemptious Zuckerberg's personal affairs leaked and sold to the highest bidder.

I wonder how much their lawyers are egging them on (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 2 years ago | (#36567808)

After all, their lawyers are the only ones with something to gain in this case.

Time to hire a hit (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#36567812)

Seriously, after this long of being a thorn its time to put them out of the picture. Especially since they were offered more money to go away than they could ever figure out what to do with.

Re:Time to hire a hit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36571850)

Seriously? you're solution to this is to orchestrate a murder? their idea was stolen so they're suing and your idea is to just kill them both. What sort of a caveman are you?

It was only an idea. Ideas are worthless (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#36568228)

The Winklevoss twins offer no contract, no NDA and no reason not to work for a competitor. They had nothing to stop him from stealing their ideas. Ideas aren't copyrightable. They're easy to come up with. It's execution that matters.

Now these guys had money, or at least access to money. The could easily have hired a coder, full time, got a site together in a month. Maybe nothing amazing but it would have done the job, and been first to market and that's what's important.

They made a bad Business decision. Zuckerberg took advantage of this bad business decision. That's the world of business for you.

Greed will imprison us all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36568802)

They're so greedy, they're going to spend that $65 million on legal fees and end up with nothing.

Zuckerburg, even if it costs him equally in legal fees, can afford it.

Greed will get you.

65 million (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36569028)

They got 65 million dollars and they are still trying to sue? What a bunch of greedy fucks.

Are those guys Ferengi? (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 2 years ago | (#36572304)

That's just pure greed IMO.

Seriously, that amount is around what, 50-60 times what the average north-american worker will earn in his *whole life*...

(Why anyone would even *need* more than that is beyond me.)

Even after taxes and everything, let's say even 20M $, just the interests on that will allow anyone to never worry about being able to afford something. Heck, just gimme 1M , and I'm retiring at 40...

Re:Are those guys Ferengi? (1)

euroq (1818100) | more than 2 years ago | (#36573098)

What you are implying is that it is OK to steal from rich people because they have lots of money. I know that's probably not something you agree with, but that is the result of letting somebody steal something from you and then saying they shouldn't fight back for it because they already have more money than most others.

Spelling and grammar fail (1)

obscured_dude (884855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36575034)

" Everyone thought this meant they had finally given up. It turns out that the twins have decided to keep fighting after all, just with a different lawsuit." " Should be..." Everyone thought this meant the winklevoss's had given up, it turns out that the twins have deicded to keep fighting suckerberg after all, in a different lawsuit." Or something like that...
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...